Ray Rider wrote:Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

Some people would say the same about the Palestinians, so if we followed that philosophy, neither side would talk with the other. But is avoiding discourse helpful in any way to resolving the situation?

That's a reasonable question.

However, the only satisfactory resolution is the end of Israel. Israel doesn't seem to be interested in participating in a discussion on how to end its existence. And, entertaining a discussion that's not focused on the only satisfactory resolution becomes a tactic that aids Israel by buying it time. So Israel should be ignored like MP Galloway did since any discussion - regardless of one's position - ends up aiding Israel.

So you'd want to give Israel back to the palestinians? Or do you have some other suggestion? A tiny itty bitty part of me thinks that the palestinians wouldn't treat the Jews in Israel very well if they all of a sudden got control of the country.

Yes.

No.

It may be the Palestinians, once in control, seize the homes of the Israeli Jews and move them into tents, conduct random searches of Israeli Jews while traveling about, prohibit Israeli Jews from holding certain jobs, wall-in Israeli Jewish zones, put a Muslim or Christian religious authority in charge of food regulation and replace the Star of David on the flag with the Hawk of Quraish. In other words, the Palestinians will treat the Israeli Jews exactly like the Palestinians themselves have been treated and we've been told is acceptable. So, the way the Israeli Jews will be treated will be acceptable by their own standards.

* with exception to the above, I think the status and property of the Old Yishuv Jewish community should be guaranteed

Lil_SlimShady wrote:Why can't the sacred land of Israel just be moved to Australia? There is plenty of room, warm weather, and the Aussies are chill. Plus, the Jews will be able to do so much less damage to the world if they are surrounded by a body of water. If Britain granted them rights to Palestinian land in the 40's then why cant they just change their mind?

Well that's an interesting concept, but I'll improve on it.

Who took the land from whom just depends on how far back in history you choose to go so you can't base anything on that. Australia is awfully far away; all parties want a homeland in that area. The Isaelis built all the industry, modern housing, utilities, and other ingredients of a better quality of life there, so it would be unfair to send them out, and many of the supposed Palestinians in Israel are actually immigrants from Israel's neighbors, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who moved there to take advantage of the jobs and quality of life.

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them. After all Jordan and Syria are so much bigger and have so much more land to spare. Shoot, they even border on one another, so they could put the land on the border, split the gift and be even more generous.

So the Palestinians have a homeland right where they are from, Israel's defensive borders aren't compromised, and everybody is happy. Problem solved.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

daddy1gringo wrote:So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

daddy1gringo wrote:So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

saxitoxin wrote:...you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

You seem to have some pent-up hatred inside, Uncle Saxi. Just don't forget:

daddy1gringo wrote:So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

First, the idea of a so-called "Jewish exodus" is a silly narrative by the Zionist so they can have a "but what about ..." line to which to respond to the horror of the Palestinian Holocaust. The very idea of "Jews fleeing" is ridiculous when most Arab states actually prohibited Jewish emigration for several decades until the 1970s. That's a pretty slow "flight."

Second, in most cases no properties were seized even when the landlords voluntarily chose to become absentee landlords and move to the so-called "State of Israel." In Syria, for instance, Arabs who live in properties owned by Jews continue to pay rent to Jews who hold title to those properties even though their landlords have been absentee for 40 years. This is a principle of rule of law and property rights.

Ray Rider wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:...you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

You seem to have some pent-up hatred inside, Uncle Saxi.

Not at all. If you, in Canada, stop paying rent to your landlord, refuse to go to court and refuse to leave when asked, the landlord will show up with the RCMP. If, when the RCMP arrive, you start firing a howitzer at the patrol cars while your cousin flies overhead dropping napalm on the RCMP from a F-16, I can guarantee - in fairly short order - you, too, would be subject to incoming rocket fire or worse.

The Israelis have refused every opportunity to leave. A forcible eviction of the deadbeat debtors is, therefore, justified. Because the Israelis are armed-to-the-teeth, the Palestinians are justified to use more than pepper spray to execute these legal and just eviction proceedings.

daddy1gringo wrote:So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

First, the idea of a so-called "Jewish exodus" is a silly narrative by the Zionist so they can have a "but what about ..." line to which to respond to the horror of the Palestinian Holocaust. The very idea of "Jews fleeing" is ridiculous when most Arab states actually prohibited Jewish emigration for several decades until the 1970s. That's a pretty slow "flight."

Second, in most cases no properties were seized even when the landlords voluntarily chose to become absentee landlords and move to the so-called "State of Israel." In Syria, for instance, Arabs who live in properties owned by Jews continue to pay rent to Jews who hold title to those properties even though their landlords have been absentee for 40 years. This is a principle of rule of law and property rights.

Oh, so the 200 Jews who were killed, 1000 injured, along with hundreds of Jewish homes and business which were destroyed during the Farhud in Baghdad was probably just some sort of massive accident which somehow occurred only to Jews? You should've been around to tell the 100,000+ people who fled the country as a result that "there's no Jewish Exodus" and it's "ridiculous to flee." Oh and the Aleppo massacre in Syria, I suppose that never happened either? The emigration restrictions which you mentioned is but one indicator of the rigid restrictions placed on Jews in various Arab/Muslim nations which caused them to try ever harder to escape such racism.

saxitoxin wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:...you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

You seem to have some pent-up hatred inside, Uncle Saxi.

Not at all. If you, in Canada, stop paying rent to your landlord, refuse to go to court and refuse to leave when asked, the landlord will show up with the RCMP. If, when the RCMP arrive, you start firing a howitzer at the patrol cars while your cousin flies overhead dropping napalm on the RCMP from a F-16, I can guarantee - in fairly short order - you, too, would be subject to incoming rocket fire or worse.

The Israelis have refused every opportunity to leave. A forcible eviction of the deadbeat debtors is, therefore, justified. Because the Israelis are armed-to-the-teeth, the Palestinians are justified to use more than pepper spray to execute these legal and just eviction proceedings.

an eviction -->

I think you mean, "a kidnapping," since, you know, Gilad's captors did demand a ransom in return for his release. Furthermore, he was held in conditions which the Red Cross objected to as being against international humanitarian law. Are you sure you want to side with his captors? This was the first time in 26 years an Israeli soldier was released alive. The 1027 prisoners released in return for Gilad's freedom indicates to me the value that Israelis place on human life, even a single one at that. I and much of the West can identify much more with that type of worldview (although I personally still disagree with releasing hundreds of convicted terrorists in exchange for a single person).

Additionally, even if I were to grant to you that somehow the kidnapping was justified (which I don't, but we'll continue for the sake of the argument), in what civilized nation do we march our POW's down the street in handcuffs at gunpoint as part of a parade?

daddy1gringo wrote:So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

First, the idea of a so-called "Jewish exodus" is a silly narrative by the Zionist so they can have a "but what about ..." line to which to respond to the horror of the Palestinian Holocaust. The very idea of "Jews fleeing" is ridiculous when most Arab states actually prohibited Jewish emigration for several decades until the 1970s. That's a pretty slow "flight."

Second, in most cases no properties were seized even when the landlords voluntarily chose to become absentee landlords and move to the so-called "State of Israel." In Syria, for instance, Arabs who live in properties owned by Jews continue to pay rent to Jews who hold title to those properties even though their landlords have been absentee for 40 years. This is a principle of rule of law and property rights.

Oh, so the 200 Jews who were killed, 1000 injured, along with hundreds of Jewish homes and business which were destroyed during the Farhud in Baghdad was probably just some sort of massive accident which somehow occurred only to Jews? You should've been around to tell the 100,000+ people who fled the country as a result that "there's no Jewish Exodus" and it's "ridiculous to flee." Oh and the Aleppo massacre in Syria, I suppose that never happened either? The emigration restrictions which you mentioned is but one indicator of the rigid restrictions placed on Jews in various Arab/Muslim nations which caused them to try ever harder to escape such racism

Mobs act how they act. Arab and Persian governments, however, have cared for their Jewish minorities. In Syria, the Jewish community is being protected by the Ba'ath Party from the medieval Islamists the British and French have unleashed. (see: http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/06/14/wh ... rias-jews/) In Iran, Jews are guaranteed seats in parliament. So, there is no official policy of Jewish persecution in Arab or Persian countries. There is, however, an official policy of Arab persecution in "Israel."

Israel needs to stop being deadbeats and either, (a) pay their $300 billion debt, or, (b) agree to a realistic payment plan, and then collections efforts could end (or at least scaled back from Grad missile volleys to annoying phone calls in the middle of dinner).

daddy1gringo wrote: The Isaelis built all the industry, modern housing, utilities, and other ingredients of a better quality of life there, so it would be unfair to send them out, and many of the supposed Palestinians in Israel are actually immigrants from Israel's neighbors, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who moved there to take advantage of the jobs and quality of life.

Yes, they did that, but also made quite sure that the Palestiniens could not do that.

This is why the comparison to the holocaust and Germany, or Japan are apt. WE also won the war, and while we might not have been personally attacked much here, Europe was certainly overrun.. by a nation that made no secret of truly wanting to control the world. Japan, too, had similar aspirations.

YET... they got aid, have long since been forgiven. Palestiniens, who's basic "crime" was not wanting their land taken from them, not wanting foreigners to come and destroy their way of life, generally without any real compensation.

Some payments were made to Palestiniens for land, but a LOT was just taken.. and the taking got worse, not better, when Israel was officially established. That Israel often used its court system and a state-supported police force or army to do its dirty work, rather than independent poorly armed individuals doesn't justify it.

AND..for all the talk of "they just want Israel to go away".. what about the way Israel has, for decades, even today, refused to even acknowledge that Palestiniens are a true people and not just "some Arabs" who happen to live in the land they want. (as if that were even a relevant piece of information).

daddy1gringo wrote: So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them. After all Jordan and Syria are so much bigger and have so much more land to spare. Shoot, they even border on one another, so they could put the land on the border, split the gift and be even more generous.

So the Palestinians have a homeland right where they are from, Israel's defensive borders aren't compromised, and everybody is happy. Problem solved.

And you could just hand over the title to your house..

No? Why not.. you seem to support Israel? Why on Earth SHOULD anyone else give up their land for the Palestiniens? Why should the Palestiniens have to move. Becuase some Jews want to claim that the Bible tells them the land is theirs? If so, then they should have, at a minimum, bought the land, dealt honestly with the Palestiniens instead of systematically destroying any chance they have for not just a viable country, but a place where they could live in peace with their own culture and the right to decide their own rules.

Lil_SlimShady wrote:Why can't the sacred land of Israel just be moved to Australia? There is plenty of room, warm weather, and the Aussies are chill. Plus, the Jews will be able to do so much less damage to the world if they are surrounded by a body of water. If Britain granted them rights to Palestinian land in the 40's then why cant they just change their mind?

Well that's an interesting concept, but I'll improve on it.

Who took the land from whom just depends on how far back in history you choose to go so you can't base anything on that. Australia is awfully far away; all parties want a homeland in that area. The Isaelis built all the industry, modern housing, utilities, and other ingredients of a better quality of life there, so it would be unfair to send them out, and many of the supposed Palestinians in Israel are actually immigrants from Israel's neighbors, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who moved there to take advantage of the jobs and quality of life.

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them. After all Jordan and Syria are so much bigger and have so much more land to spare. Shoot, they even border on one another, so they could put the land on the border, split the gift and be even more generous.

So the Palestinians have a homeland right where they are from, Israel's defensive borders aren't compromised, and everybody is happy. Problem solved.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

So to sum up, your reply is 2 parts:1: Yes, that's a good solution except for 1 thing.2: That 1 thing is the usual, "The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop."

So if we leave out the dialectus fizz goop, we have agreement that it is a good plan. Thank you; I knew you'd see reason. I expect to hear soon the results of your campaign to convince the governments of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to provide a homeland for their homeless brothers.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

daddy1gringo wrote:2: That 1 thing is the usual, "The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop."

Uhhh ... no. That's how Israel presents the Palestinian position, not how I presented it and certainly not how the Palestinians themselves view it. Israel has no legal position so their PR agencies in the U.S. tell people that "this is just a centuries old conflict of he said/she said, what can ya do?"

This is not a centuries old conflict, it is only a few decades old. It is not an existential idea of "was it Palestinian or Jewish land," but a question of property rights to individual lots of land - physical houses, land acreage, etc., which were voided.

There is a room of records in both Amman and London that contains actual, physical deeds and house titles issued by the British Mandatory government to individual people that still have universal legality. The owners of that land had eminent domain brought down on their property and were kicked out, without compensation, by the Israeli government.

Do you own a house? If the government showed up tomorrow, told you to move out, that a Ukrainian family needed it, would you want to be paid the full value for your house? Or would you say "sure, no problem - take it!" Palestinians, like most people in the U.S. or France or anywhere in the west, had the bulk of their individual net worth invested in their homes. The entire personal wealth of hundreds of thousands of people was wiped-out, virtually overnight.

The way I understand the ownership situation is that the British, who owned it all at the time, divided the land fairly between the two peoples of Jewish and Palestinians. The Jews were fine with this and it was the Palestinians who absolutely refused to live with Jewish neighbors and no sooner that the British left the region were the Jewish People attacked by 3 neighboring Muslim, Palestinians neighbors...

"The war was preceded by a period of civil war in the territory of the Mandatory Palestine between Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arab forces in response to the UN Partition Plan. An alliance of Arab states intervened on the Palestinian side, turning the civil war into a war between sovereign states"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab% ... sraeli_War

In other words they tried to gang up on the Jewish people rather than trying to live peacefully with them for a while and see what happens.

The British did officially own that region and it was theirs to do with what they wanted. And that the UN agreed with the mandate simply made it official. everyone has the right to protect themselves regardless of who they are. That the self protection had to include the taking away of land from the Palestine's was the choice of the Palestinians. No one, even if they believe that they are right should gang up on anyone else. That is just plain wrong and the Palestinian motive is obvious and clear. They simply hate the Jewish people and it does not matter if it makes sense to anyone or not.

The Jewish People are not saints, no one is, but if they have been given something and others want to take it away, then they have every right to fight for what is theirs, anyway they can, especially in view of an overwhelming majority that simply wont rest til they are all wiped out and eliminated from the game. I seriously doubt that the Palestinians would react any differently were their roles reversed. They may even be worse then the Jews as part of the Qur'an involves conquering the world even by way of the sword of war, in the name of Allah. Or so I understand.

Last edited by Viceroy63 on Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

#4 - The British said, "these people are nuts!" and fled, like the Zs wanted. With British police gone, the Zs sent their militia into Palestinian neighborhoods and said "we need your houses" - and threw the owners out onto the street. Anyone who tried to stay in their house was hacked to death. Then they moved families from Poland and Ukraine into those houses. The entire wealth of hundreds of thousands of families was wiped out overnight.

#5 - Gen. John Glubb, British-born commander of the Jordanian Army was "WTF?" and threw together an army of 90,000 Arab volunteers to stop the ethnic cleansing (1st Arab-Israeli War). Unfortunately, the Arabs were outnumbered by the 120,000 troops of the Z army, many of whom were fed cocaine before battle to make them ferocious. The Zs then moved into the other half of the land - the half governed by Palestinians - and did the same thing ... seized all the property at bayonet-point, instantly wiping out the wealth of hundreds of thousands of more families.

The Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett said, "we have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it."

daddy1gringo wrote:2: That 1 thing is the usual, "The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop."

Uhhh ... no. That's how Israel presents the Palestinian position, not how I presented it and certainly not how the Palestinians themselves view it. Israel has no legal position so their PR agencies in the U.S. tell people that "this is just a centuries old conflict of he said/she said, what can ya do?"

This is not a centuries old conflict, it is only a few decades old. It is not an existential idea of "was it Palestinian or Jewish land," but a question of property rights to individual lots of land - physical houses, land acreage, etc., which were voided.

There is a room of records in both Amman and London that contains actual, physical deeds and house titles issued by the British Mandatory government to individual people that still have universal legality. The owners of that land had eminent domain brought down on their property and were kicked out, without compensation, by the Israeli government.

Do you own a house? If the government showed up tomorrow, told you to move out, that a Ukrainian family needed it, would you want to be paid the full value for your house? Or would you say "sure, no problem - take it!" Palestinians, like most people in the U.S. or France or anywhere in the west, had the bulk of their individual net worth invested in their homes. The entire personal wealth of hundreds of thousands of people was wiped-out, virtually overnight.

Right, that's the slight variation: "I have facts and figures to PROVE that The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop." and the other side has their facts and figures to prove their dialectus fizz goop, etc., etc. But once you jettison all the partisan dialectus fizz goop, it's a perfectly equitable plan, like you said.

The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.

daddy1gringo wrote:2: That 1 thing is the usual, "The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop."

Uhhh ... no. That's how Israel presents the Palestinian position, not how I presented it and certainly not how the Palestinians themselves view it. Israel has no legal position so their PR agencies in the U.S. tell people that "this is just a centuries old conflict of he said/she said, what can ya do?"

This is not a centuries old conflict, it is only a few decades old. It is not an existential idea of "was it Palestinian or Jewish land," but a question of property rights to individual lots of land - physical houses, land acreage, etc., which were voided.

There is a room of records in both Amman and London that contains actual, physical deeds and house titles issued by the British Mandatory government to individual people that still have universal legality. The owners of that land had eminent domain brought down on their property and were kicked out, without compensation, by the Israeli government.

Do you own a house? If the government showed up tomorrow, told you to move out, that a Ukrainian family needed it, would you want to be paid the full value for your house? Or would you say "sure, no problem - take it!" Palestinians, like most people in the U.S. or France or anywhere in the west, had the bulk of their individual net worth invested in their homes. The entire personal wealth of hundreds of thousands of people was wiped-out, virtually overnight.

Right, that's the slight variation: "I have facts and figures to PROVE that The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop." and the other side has their facts and figures to prove their dialectus fizz goop, etc., etc. But once you jettison all the partisan dialectus fizz goop, it's a perfectly equitable plan, like you said.

I'm sorry but you don't understand and are simply out of your depth. This is not a battle of two sides fighting over an historic idea of homeland. The PLO/PLA support property rights of all pre-1900 residents of Palestine, both Jewish and Arab.

There is 99% support of this position. The 1% who don't support it are the Zionist politicos and their constituents - the thousands of Ukrainian meth-heads who showed up in the last few years screaming they were secular Jews and willing to join the IDF if they could get a welfare check (most of whom weren't even circumcised). Every single President since Johnson has switched positions after they've left office to support the Palestinian view - even George Bush).

"I have facts and figures to PROVE that The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop."

Anyway, I never knew. It's an interesting turn around.

Sax, do you have a list of the other presidents changing their minds about this issue?(so that I can easily read them all, instead of spending 20 min googling around).

BigBallinStalin wrote:I read the article about Bush, but I couldn't confirm that he stated:

"I have facts and figures to PROVE that The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop."

Anyway, I never knew. It's an interesting turn around.

Sax, do you have a list of the other presidents changing their minds about this issue?(so that I can easily read them all, instead of spending 20 min googling around).

The f*ck am I, the reference desk librarian?! OK, I'll look around a bit later. Off the top of my head, Carter said this in his book "Peace Not Apartheid."

Bush, Carter, etc., have to be anti-Palestinian while they're in office because US voters like D1G subscribe to AIPAC misinformation that this is a battle between two ethnic groups, instead of what it is, a battle between the Jews & Arabs who lived there pre-1900 versus the Jews and "Jews" * who moved in last week.

* i.e. If you don't speak Hebrew, have never been inside synagogue, aren't circumcised and your family has lived in eastern Europe for the last 800 years, what "right" do you have to live in Israel over a Palestinian living there right now?

kismetSix million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, and this figure comes from the Nazis themselves, who were meticulous about recording their atrocities.

In 1945, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, anticipated that someday an attempt would be made to recharacterize the Nazi crimes as propaganda and took steps against it:

“ The same day I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never been able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain however, that I have never at any time experienced an equal sense of shock.

I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that "the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda". Some members of the visiting party were unable to go through with the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton's headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and the British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt."

Denials of the Holocaust have been regularly promoted by various Arab leaders and in various media throughout the Middle East. Newspapers funded by the Saudi Arabian government routinely deny the existence of the Holocaust, or downplay its significance. Individuals from the Syrian government, as well as the Palestinian political group Hamas have recently published Holocaust denial statements.

In August 2002, the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, an Arab League think-tank whose Chairman, Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahayan, served as Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, promoted a Holocaust denial symposium in Abu Dhabi. Hamas leaders have also promoted Holocaust denial; Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi held that the Holocaust never occurred, that Zionists were behind the action of Nazis, and that Zionists funded Nazism. A press release by Hamas in April 2000 decried "the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis."

Holocaust denial has also been resisted by prominent intellectual figures in the Arab world; in 2001, an outcry led by Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, Lebanese writer Elias Khoury and others brought about the cancellation of a conference the Holocaust denial organization Institute for Historical Review had planned to hold in Beirut.

In 2005 the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, denounced what he called "the myth of the Holocaust" in defending Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust.

premio53 wrote:The Jews are one of the foundation stones of proof that the Bible is inspired by God. They are a chosen race that that can never be destroyed. It is through them that the Jewish Messiah came into the world 2,000 year ago and in the near future (during the battle of Armageddon) their Messiah whom they rejected the first time will return to save them from extinction.

Jeremiah 31:35-37

35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

The history of "The Wandering Jew" is one of persecution throughout the church age in country after country. The fact that they have been preserved as a separate race while being scattered around the world and having no country to call their own for 2500 years is beyond human comprehension.

I grew up in the South during the civil rights movement and saw first hand the hatred of the Jewish people. The Ku Klux Klan hated them more than they did the Black race and charged them with trying to destroy the White race through interracial marriages while keeping themselves separate, similar to what Hitler did.

Although out numbered a 100 to 1 there is no power on earth that will destroy modern day Israel and woe be to anyone who tries.

The religiously overboard are always good for a chuckle.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Well, it seems odd doesn't it? More than once they have been threatened with extinction.

A group kills 6 million of them. Meticulously records it since they are planning to wipe out every last one. Several decades later people argue about it with some going so far that they say, "6million? That can't be right." all the way down to out right denial.

What can you tell us about some of the much more recent genocides like the Kurds?